PDA

View Full Version : Mac users 'too smug' over security


MacBytes
Jan 16, 2006, 11:48 AM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)

Category: Opinion/Interviews
Link: Mac users 'too smug' over security (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20060116124851)
Description:: "Mac users demonstrate an indefensible smugness when it comes to the dangers of having their systems compromised by malicious software and opened up to exploitation by others. It's time they started behaving a bit more responsibly."

Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by arn

Lacero
Jan 16, 2006, 11:51 AM
Responsibly?

I bought a Mac so I don't have to put up with Windows. That's pretty responsible right there.

Lame-oHere's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

7on
Jan 16, 2006, 11:54 AM
As soon as I here news reports of a virus I will start being cautious. I do keep a monthly backup of my home dir so nothing should phase me.

winmacguy
Jan 16, 2006, 12:06 PM
I have a feeling that if a Mac specific virus ever did make it into the wild that
a. it would be shut down by Apple very quickly and
b. it would only be complete idiots who would install it on their systems due to Apple's setup
c. it would be hidden in a freely distributed application as it would require user intervention to install it so it would have nowhere near the same effect as a Windows virus.
d. It would have been written by a fairly clever Unix admin that had some issues with Apple :rolleyes:

Almost forgot:
e. the huge web based safety net of Mac forum users (/., MR, OS News etc) would discover it within minutes and post an alert and a work around warning and advising users about the viruses existance.

asif786
Jan 16, 2006, 12:11 PM
Excuse my language, but: What a tool :rolleyes:

G5Unit
Jan 16, 2006, 12:13 PM
I agree with Lacero. Windows users are just trying to make it seem as if Macs are in danger.

Stella
Jan 16, 2006, 12:15 PM
I couldn't more with this article. The attitude of some mac users when it comes to security is, well, sickening.

IJ Reilly
Jan 16, 2006, 12:15 PM
Duplicate thread!

http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2063599

jvaska
Jan 16, 2006, 12:23 PM
Ummm...bring it on.

And then we'll see how the community (include Apple) reacts. Too bad they don't have game yet so we've never had to even be on the court.

Articles like this are so stupid.

bbyrdhouse
Jan 16, 2006, 12:23 PM
Responsibly?

I bought a Mac so I don't have to put up with Windows. That's pretty responsible right there.

Lame-oHere's to the Crazy Ones http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=35452 (http://www.uriah.com/apple-qt/movies/think-different.mov)

Responsibly?

I too bought a Mac because I got fed up with all of the spyware, malware, virus, trojan horse stuff. Seemed like every week there was something else that would require me to go to a website and download a tool to run on my computer and then give me a list of instructions as to how to get rid of the virus or whatever.
It got to a point to where I was spending WAY to much time trying to get my computer to be usable as opposed to using it.
So I did what I think was a "responsible" thing to do. I switched to a much safer, secure OS environment. And now for the last year I have not had even 1 virus, malware, adware, trojan horse, or worm. I am able to spend musch more time using and enjoying my computer instead of having to pretend that I am "Neo" and have to protect the whole world from evil Mr. Smith (MS for short);)

revisionA
Jan 16, 2006, 01:08 PM
I have had PCs since 1988.... and as soon as they went on the web... their lifecycle accelerated and reformatting and reinstalling became an annual chore. (semi-annual if you are a performance nut.)

Even before the general public understood spam and spyware, they had to deal with it. This is counter-marketshare loss propaganda... Winhoes whine that macs arent that secure, that fast or that fun... Macusers whine that... umm... we are misrepresented.

haha

$

adicarter
Jan 16, 2006, 01:13 PM
The fact is we keep getting these articles that are essentially hoping for something bad to happen to the Mac community.

There are some journalists who are just foaming at the mouth waiting for some kind of viral attack on OS X. It's essentially to make them feel better about the fact that they spend all their time fixing and patching thier systems rather than actually using them.

When the day comes, you can just imagine the Windows fraternity reaction, even one virus will suddenly paint us as "vulnerable" as them.

ADi

eazyway
Jan 16, 2006, 03:19 PM
Well I have beeen a Mac user for 30 years and have yet to encounter a virus that gave me a problem with lost , deleted files etc.

Now my Windows machines its another story. Sure at some point there willbe a Mac virus, Thus I have always backed up important files. But until then, yes I am smug and lovin it.

danp
Jan 16, 2006, 03:54 PM
Its bare-faced vanity to assume that Mac OS X is beyond these kind of vulnerabilities. And fobbing off the "security through obscurity" argument doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

The facts speak for themselves; Apple already have to release security patches for Mac OS X as they're discovered. They also have to patch iTunes and Quicktime. In short, they don't write perfect code, and are not immune to the need to fix holes.

What doesn't currently exist is the interest from the hardcore hacker community - who don't run the right hardware, who don't have sufficient knowledge in the systems, and (as hard as it might be for true Mac fans to accept), aren't all that interested in the platform. Now OS X is available for x86 hardware, these hackers have an easier route to dissect the OS and find the flaws.

The question is, will Apple be able to keep up with the rate at which they're discovered and push out the (tested) fixes to stop any infection spread?

I believe Bill is incorrect when he states such vulnerabilities already exist. However, its equally foolish to assume they never will.

Gasu E.
Jan 16, 2006, 04:24 PM
The facts speak for themselves; Apple already have to release security patches for Mac OS X as they're discovered. They also have to patch iTunes and Quicktime. In short, they don't write perfect code, and are not immune to the need to fix holes.

Quite right. It is an economic condition that no viruses currently exist for the Mac, not an absolute one.

Corollary-- the Windows monoculture improves the "cost/benefit" for virus writers. If, say, Windows had only a 50% share, MacOS 30%, and Linux 20%, the payoff for a virus writer would be smaller and there would be fewer viruses overall.

winmacguy
Jan 16, 2006, 04:33 PM
Its bare-faced vanity to assume that Mac OS X is beyond these kind of vulnerabilities. And fobbing off the "security through obscurity" argument doesn't cut it, I'm afraid.

The facts speak for themselves; Apple already have to release security patches for Mac OS X as they're discovered. They also have to patch iTunes and Quicktime. In short, they don't write perfect code, and are not immune to the need to fix holes

Vulnerabilites are somewhat different than Viruses, trojans and spyware. As long as both Mac and Windows are written by human coders who make coding errors and various 'string varible funtions' that enable things such as buffer over flows from certain computing functions or process there will always be a requirement for security patches on both systems to correct or adjust the 'flaws'. However due to the lack of 'root user' access by default on Unix and Mac OS unlike Windows this eliminates about 95% of viruses that are Windows. Unless they have some understanding of computers about 95% of Windows users run their systems as Administrators with full access privilages enabled pretty much by default from the manufacturer which is very helpful for Viruses etc

It is not impossible to write a virus for Unix - the first virus ever written at was a Unix virus written at Berkley, it is just very hard to get it to spread and install itself on OS X like a windows virus does on Windows systems.

akb
Jan 16, 2006, 04:37 PM
Well I have beeen a Mac user for 30 years and have yet to encounter a virus that gave me a problem with lost , deleted files etc.

Now my Windows machines its another story. Sure at some point there willbe a Mac virus, Thus I have always backed up important files. But until then, yes I am smug and lovin it.
30 years, huh?

So, do we have hoverboards in 2014?

winmacguy
Jan 16, 2006, 04:54 PM
30 years, huh?

So, do we have hoverboards in 2014?
We might if your going to make one ;) considering that 2014 is about 8 years away. We did have Light Sabers back in 1976.

p0intblank
Jan 16, 2006, 05:40 PM
This article writer sounds like the typical Windows user trying to dis the Mac OS. There may be a virus one day, but I don't see this happening anytime soon. Or it may never happen. This fact still stands no matter what anyone says: Mac OS X is years ahead of Windows as far as security goes.

And I'll smug about it if I want. :p After all, we Mac users do have the right to do so.

iIra
Jan 16, 2006, 06:44 PM
I want to know what he suggests a more responsible course would be. Antivirus software is useless, due to the lack of viruses.

We might if your going to make one ;) considering that 2014 is about 8 years away. We did have Light Sabers back in 1976.

He was saying that in order to have been a mac user for 30 years, you would have to live in the year 2014.

lalcan
Jan 16, 2006, 07:29 PM
Someone should send a free mac to Bill Tompson so he can experiment with our OS reliability, i'm sure sooner than you think he would become addict to the RDF and enjoy the benefits... btw perhaps he could use some friendly written mails at his e-mail: bill at andfinally.com

dejo
Jan 16, 2006, 07:53 PM
Quite right. It is an economic condition that no viruses currently exist for the Mac, not an absolute one.

Corollary-- the Windows monoculture improves the "cost/benefit" for virus writers. If, say, Windows had only a 50% share, MacOS 30%, and Linux 20%, the payoff for a virus writer would be smaller and there would be fewer viruses overall.

And yet Apache is still more secure than IIS even though it has a larger marketshare. Hmm...

winmacguy
Jan 16, 2006, 08:22 PM
I want to know what he suggests a more responsible course would be. Antivirus software is useless, due to the lack of viruses.



He was saying that in order to have been a mac user for 30 years, you would have to live in the year 2014.
The Apple I came out in 1976. Ok it wasn't called a Mac but it is still part of the Apple family. It is now 2006 so that makes 30 years of Apple computers unless he is refering to the release of the Mac in 1984 which would make it 30 years in 2014.

Quite right. It is an economic condition that no viruses currently exist for the Mac, not an absolute one.

That would be an economic condition of OS X called no root user access. :rolleyes:

sjk
Jan 16, 2006, 08:47 PM
I do keep a monthly backup of my home dir so nothing should phase me.Only monthly? The contents of your home directory mustn't change much if losing a month's worth wouldn't phase you. I wouldn't want to lose even a day's worth in my homedir.

bousozoku
Jan 16, 2006, 09:20 PM
It's not a surprising conclusion. Mac users have been smug about a great many things all along. It's unfortunate, but it's part of life. As long as someone isn't being a Mac-o-lyte, what's the big deal?

I was just reading today how the U.S. government was presenting seminars concerning dissecting Linux and Mac OS X to determine vulnerabilities. It was said that there were many exploits for Mac OS X. I was wondering who created all of these exploits and why we haven't seen any of them.

It's all about discrediting something other than Windows so that Windows doesn't lose its users. Yes, Mac OS X has had many security issues--and they're patched.

jbembe
Jan 16, 2006, 10:05 PM
Quite right. It is an economic condition that no viruses currently exist for the Mac, not an absolute one.

Corollary-- the Windows monoculture improves the "cost/benefit" for virus writers. If, say, Windows had only a 50% share, MacOS 30%, and Linux 20%, the payoff for a virus writer would be smaller and there would be fewer viruses overall.

Isn't it also possible that the supposed "virus writer's market" would be highly motivated by being the first to successfully attack Mac OS?

:confused: ;)

nagromme
Jan 16, 2006, 10:17 PM
The old refrain:

1. No OS has perfect security and a total lack of bugs.

2. Therefore Mac OS X is not perfect.

3. Therefore Mac OS X is just AS bad as Windows.

4. Therefore Max OS X is WORSE than Windows.

5. Therefore the ONLY reason Macs are more secure is because there are fewer of them.

Nice logic :D And yet often repeated--in longer-winded forms.

The Mac's smaller market presence is a good thing for security. Obviously. And unless you predict that Macs will SURPASS Windows any time soon, then it's a great reason to expect that Macs will STAY more secure than Windows.

I used to believe that was the only reason--and I still slept easier knowing my privacy and security were much safer than Windows users'.

But to say there is NO other reason would be to turn a blind eye to some basic facts. There are real, technical reasons why Windows is less secure and OS X is more secure--by design. Just as there are historical reasons for the complexity of Windows' code--and of the hardware it must run on--that makes patching those holes more difficult for Microsoft than for Apple. That's why now we're STILL finding gaping holes (WMF exploit) that have existed for years and remain even in the latest versions of Windows--including Vista.

But beyond the "number of holes" there's also the question of how easily those holes can be exploited, and how much damage can be done once entry is gained. OS X is far more likely to limit those two factors. Look at the nature of OS X "vulnerabilities" (not viruses, because there are none) and you will most often see a very specific set of factors that have to come together before an intrusion can occur. Not like this latest Windows problem where simply viewing a web page is enough to get a virus. Windows has more serious holes that are more easily exploited. And no open-source community to help, like Apple has.

"Security by obscurity" isn't a myth: it's a real factor and it's a good thing. But it's NOT the reason our Macs are more secure. It's just one factor in our favor.

The myth, of course, is telling someone this:

1. Macs have no viruses or spyware.

2. But the only reason Macs are more secure is because there are fewer of them.

3. And if YOU buy a Mac, there will soon be more Macs than PCs.

4. Then Macs will have more viruses than Windows, and you will pay the price.

5. Better stay with Windows, then, which has thousands of viruses.

More logic :) But still you often hear this very advice given to people.


What doesn't currently exist is the interest from the hardcore hacker community
Absolutely Macs are a target for crackers. A BIG one, an ATTRACTIVE one, and a PROFITABLE one, and they have been for years.

OS X has been around for years, now--and it's partly based on technologies and OS's (BSD, NeXT) familiar to tech afficianados for even longer. Crackers of a certain type have sought challenges and prestige for years. Macs have been worth extra points in cracking contests for years. Users of other platforms have long felt jealousy toward Macs, and would love to take them down a peg. More so now than ever before, with the Mac platform finally starting to be seen as the success that it is. And some high-profile specific targets, like universities, media companies, scientific research labs, and the US Army, use Mac OS X. Then throw in the specific challenges and prizes that have been offered from time to time for the first real-world, succesful Mac OS X virus.

The incentives ARE there, in a big way. AS big an incentive as Windows? Overall, no--but in some ways (prestige for instance) the incentive is higher for OS X than for Windows.

And what makes you think crackers would have no interest in any target BUT the biggest? They have more interest in Windows, and plenty of interest in other platforms too--UNIXes included. That's why individual mobile phone lines have their own viruses these days. That's why Vista had viruses months ago. (Honda Accords, last I heard, are the most common target of theft. That doesn't make them the ONLY target.)

There are a LOT of unethical programmers in the world... some with a desire to do more than be a "script kiddie." Some who don't share your assumption that no target but THE biggest is of any interest.

So it's a certainty that at least SOME people have been trying to make OS X viruses--for quite some time. They've never managed it yet, but they WILL.

Then we'll have one virus instead of zero... and I'll still be safer than a Windows user :)

macidiot
Jan 17, 2006, 01:59 AM
I'm so tired of the old "there are no virus for mac because of its small marketshare." What a crock. By that reasoning, since osx has about 4-5% marketshare, 4-5% of the virus out there should be for mac. Funny though, there are ZERO for the mac. You'd think there would be at least one, using the marketshare argument.

Frankly, osx is a very tempting target. Besides the prestige of being the first to create a virus on osx, mac users are heavier internet users, more affluent, more vulnerable to a successful virus, more tempting targets. Either malware writers are incredibly stupid and ignorant, osx is incredibly hard to break, or windows is laughably easy to crack. I'm guessing its door number 3. Its simply the path of least resistance.

I do however think that if and when a virus hits the mac, it could be devastating. Mac users are complacent/ignorant when it comes to things like proper firewalling. And antivirus and anti-malware software is sorely lacking on the mac(sort of a catch-22 there).

But in general, this article sounds like it was written by the boy that cried wolf. Are mac users "smug?" I don't know about that, but considering there has never been a legitimate osx virus and there are millions using it everyday, and have been for several years, I think its more of "I have better things to do than worry about a problem that doesn't exist yet."

Its basically saying that people that live in the northeast are smug regarding tornados. An tornado is certainly going to happen at some point. But until it happens with some frequency, wtf is the point of getting worked up about it?

Set your firewall. Be somewhat careful with email and attachments. Use osx. Do that and you to get to be "smug." :D

nagromme
Jan 17, 2006, 02:15 AM
Here are my tips:

1. Trojan horse defense: Never launch an app from an unknown site (or email). Always go to VersionTracker.com or MacUpdate.com or the like--so you can see in the stats that many have tried it before you.

2. Firewall On.

3. Check the news site of your choice once a week. When a Mac virus hits, it will be news :)

And when it does first hit, it will be ONE virus (one single vulnerability first exploited) rather than hundreds that work in different ways. Thus, Apple and everyone will be focussed on understanding and blocking that one virus (and its likely copycats).

In other words, all guns will be aimed at the lone intruder. Within hours Mac users will know how to block it--what not to do--even without antivirus software. And shortly after that, an update from Apple will close the hole in question.

Then the long wait begins for virus #2 :D Meanwhile a few people will have failed to get the update for virus #1, so it will linger a bit. (But small Mac numbers do help to avoid propagation.)

solvs
Jan 17, 2006, 02:30 AM
It all makes sense. Mac users are smug because they believe they can't get a virus. So people want to target them and there will be a virus one day. And whoever does will be famous (as well as rich, because there are actually cash rewards out there to crack it, not to mention all of the organizations that run OS X that have sensitive info, like the military) because they finally shut all us smug Mac users up. Except there are no good reasons for virus writers to actually create an OS X virus. So they don't. But they will. Except they won't. But they might. See, it's all so simple.

Of course, it can't just be because it uses better security. It's all security through obscurity. Except, you know, OS 7 and 8 had viruses. ;)

AlmostThere
Jan 17, 2006, 05:45 AM
Someone should send a free mac to Bill Tompson so he can experiment with our OS reliability, i'm sure sooner than you think he would become addict to the RDF and enjoy the benefits... btw perhaps he could use some friendly written mails at his e-mail: bill at andfinally.com
Or don't - this guy is already a Mac user and has been for some time.
I'm so tired of the old "there are no virus for mac because of its small marketshare." What a crock. By that reasoning, since osx has about 4-5% marketshare, 4-5% of the virus out there should be for mac. Funny though, there are ZERO for the mac. You'd think there would be at least one, using the marketshare argument.
You are assuming a linear relationship and not the requirement of some threshold of either population size or density. No, I wouldn't necessarily expect there to be 4-5% the number of viruses.
1. Trojan horse defense: Never launch an app from an unknown site (or email). Always go to VersionTracker.com or MacUpdate.com or the like--so you can see in the stats that many have tried it before you.
2. Firewall On.
3. Check the news site of your choice once a week. When a Mac virus hits, it will be news
Which is probably pretty much what this author would say ... problem is that people don't.
Yes, Mac OS X has had many security issues--and they're patched.
Check which viruses and worms have topped the charts over the last 12 months. All too often they utilise vulnerabilities that have already been patched in Windows, often for months or even longer.
Absolutely Macs are a target for crackers. A BIG one, an ATTRACTIVE one, and a PROFITABLE one, and they have been for years.
If Macs are big, attractive and profitable targets, why aren't disclosed vulnerabilities exploited?

Disclosure of a vulnerability and the release of a fix in Windows often leads to exploits being developed ... even (vendor) patched vulnerabilities are observably effective routes to system damage. On OS X this simply does not happen despite the knowledge being there.

If Macs really were such a big, attractive and profitable target for crackers then there would be plenty fishing for profit using disclosed vulnerabilities.

AlBDamned
Jan 17, 2006, 07:24 AM
Bill Thompson has now printed an explanation of "what he meant" in the "too smug..." article

BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4620548.stm)

Blue Velvet
Jan 17, 2006, 07:42 AM
Bill Thompson has now printed an explanation of "what he meant" in the "too smug..." article

BBC Link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4620548.stm)

It's well-said. Sometimes I get so embarrassed by some of our fellow Mac brethren -- the ones that have to publish email addresses and flame journalists, that is.

nagromme
Jan 17, 2006, 12:19 PM
You are assuming a linear relationship and not the requirement of some threshold of either population size or density. No, I wouldn't necessarily expect there to be 4-5% the number of viruses.
Agreed. Matching the number is arbitrary. But you'd expect there to be SOME, though, after 5 years. (The previous Mac OS did at least have a few viruses. Small platforms like mobile phones have viruses. Windows Vista has viruses.)

If Macs are big, attractive and profitable targets, why aren't disclosed vulnerabilities exploited?
You seem to think there's only one reason, yet you offer no reason to believe things are that simple. In fact, there are multiple reasons, not just one, as I've discussed above:

* Macs are a smaller target than Windows. That helps. That doesn't mean they're a NON-target. Nor that there are no other factors that make Macs more secure.

* Macs don't have as MANY vulnerabilities, and they don't go unpatched for as long.

* One "vulnerability" is not like another. You make it sound like any "vulnerability" is equally easy to exploit. But in fact, most OS X vulnerabilities tend to be much more difficult--or even impossible--to exploit in the ways that are done quite easily on Windows. The OS design plays a role here. So does the buggy, bloated code mess that Windows has evolved into. Why isn't such-and-such a vulnerability turned into a successful virus on OS X? Maybe because that vulnerability CAN'T be. As I said, OS X vulnerabilities often depend on a very rare set of circumstances. In fact, if you read the details, many of them require the cracker to phsically enter your home, sit down, and be given a password by you! Are they all that "harmless"? No--and for a business, "sit down attacks" are worth the alert. But the trend seems to be far in favor of OS X vs. Windows (where you can just download a virus template, tweak it, and release).

* Fewer Macs--especially unpatched ones--means less opportunity for a Mac virus to spread itself. Yet another reason a cracker who WANTS to make a successful virus might fail to do so. Consider this the often-overlooked other side of the "obscurity" benefit: it's not just about what "interests" crackers, it's about what they can practically do: how many of the Macs out there would their virus even reach?

These factors truly do ALL make a difference. Not just one of them.

Be careful to avoid another case of flawed (but common) logic:

1. All OS's have vulnerabilities.

2. Vulnerabilities are all the same--all equally damaging and easy to exploit.

3. Therefore no OS can ever be less vulnerable than Windows.

4. Therefore Mac OS X security must be just as bad as windows.

5. Therefore, Macs having zero viruses must be 100% due to some other factor.

6. It must be because there are fewer Macs in the world. No other factor could contribute.

7. Only the reason WHY Macs have no viruses is important. The fact that there are none is unimportant.

8. Therefore, it makes no sense to avoid viruses by buying the OS that has none.

9. Better stick with Windows just to be safe :D


It's well-said. Sometimes I get so embarrassed by some of our fellow Mac brethren -- the ones that have to publish email addresses and flame journalists, that is.
What he said! Mac users GET flamed a lot--and occasionally by journalists. Flaming journalists in return helps nothing. Quite the opposite. Help them, educate them, prove that you're NOT insane. Don't act like a child.

solvs
Jan 17, 2006, 01:23 PM
It's well-said.
And if he had written that to begin with, he might not have been flamed. ;) Not saying it's right, but there it is.

bousozoku
Jan 17, 2006, 02:18 PM
...
Check which viruses and worms have topped the charts over the last 12 months. All too often they utilise vulnerabilities that have already been patched in Windows, often for months or even longer.
...

Yes, but as has been shown, they've been patched in a sloppy, cheap fashion so that it just moves the vulnerability. When Apple patches something, they don't (normally) have to patch it again for the same thing.

AlmostThere
Jan 17, 2006, 09:23 PM
You seem to think there's only one reason, yet you offer no reason to believe things are that simple. In fact, there are multiple reasons, not just one, as I've discussed above:


I am referring to published vulnerabilities which have been shown to be exploitable, such as libpng local escalation of privileges (for which proof of concept exploits exist) and could spread malware through a malicious web site, for example.

Macs are a smaller target than Windows.
Agreed.

Macs don't have as MANY vulnerabilities, and they don't go unpatched for as long.
Again, I agree.

One "vulnerability" is not like another.
Yet again, I agree. If one cannot create identikit viruses which repeatedly attack a similar vulnerability then the effort for attack becomes very high, which means that profitability decreases (and with it the attraction).

Fewer Macs--especially unpatched ones--means less opportunity for a Mac virus to spread itself.
Back to Macs being a small target. And offering a small population in which malware is unlikely to thrive makes them an unattractive target with little potential for reward.

I simply disagree that Macs are a big, attractive and profitable target - it is not about Macs being a NON-target but about the significance of Macs as a platform to worth attacking. It is a minority platform with a high barrier to penetration and little chance of success.

Utilising known exploits in a un-patched population and reaping significant reward as witnessed by the popularity of these "patched" viruses is about as easy and profitable as you can get.

Maximising profit is, after all, about reaping the greatest reward for the least amount of effort.

nagromme
Jan 17, 2006, 09:43 PM
All good points.

I simply mean to say that Macs are already a significant target worth attacking (for profit and prestige)--but they are certainly much LESS a target by a massive margin, compared to Windows. And that crackers have sufficient reason to take an interest in lesser targets too, even if the "big fish" gets the most attention.

iIra
Jan 17, 2006, 10:01 PM
This guy posted a follow up article. More of the same, really.

Column (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/4620548.stm)

MR forum (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=174025)